Esch their own, Im not much of a rule diehard bit for me it implies An attack named 'bite' OR 'jaws' not an attack named 'beak'.

Razordon and the Salamander are fair play, I Just noticed

Also so much unclear stuff has heen faq'd by now. For me this is Just obvious following wording.

Click to expand...

That was also my opinion last year, but seeing that quite a number of other rules do not follow the legal standard rule of "wording first, then interpretation" I changed my opinion.
We are not exactly an OP army so why not try take everything we can get?

That was also my opinion last year, but seeing that quite a number of other rules do not follow the legal standard rule of "wording first, then interpretation" I changed my opinion.
We are not exactly an OP army so why not try take everything we can get?

Click to expand...

Given the amount of inconsistencies that'd otherwise arise I'd say you should follow interpretation first as opposed to wording first. Especially for older stuff. GW doesnt seem to be the most consistent with their naming conventions so it often feels like rules that sould be the same are "different' because they phrased it slightly differently...